CPPIB Credit Investments Inc v Ren [2017] NSWSC 771

CPPIB Credit Investments Inc v Ren [2017] NSWSC 771

The agreement dated 4 November 2016 was not a binding financial agreement under s 90C because it was made after Ms Kong and Mr Ren had divorced, and the Chinese divorce was recognisable in Australia under s 104. In any event, there was no evidence that Mr Ren was given a copy of Ms Kong's solicitor's statement as required by s 90G(1)(ca), and no material to justify relief under s 90G(1A). Because Ms Kong did not establish that the Warrawee property effectively belonged to her under a binding financial agreement, the freezing order should continue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List; Application to Set Aside Freezing Order / Notice of Motion Filed on 29 May 2017 to Dissolve or Set Aside Freezing Order Made on 28 April 2017
Outcome
Second Respondent's motion dismissed with costs; freezing order continued until further order.
Legal Topics
['binding Financial Agreement' 'freezing Order' 'recognition of Overseas Divorce' 'family Law Act 1975 (cth) S 90 C' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 25.14(5)']
['family Law' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['binding Financial Agreement' 'freezing Order' 'recognition of Overseas Divorce' 'family Law Act 1975 (cth) S 90 C' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 25.14(5)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Commercial List; Application to Set Aside Freezing Order / Notice of Motion Filed on 29 May 2017 to Dissolve or Set Aside Freezing Order Made on 28 April 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the agreement dated 4 November 2016 was a binding financial agreement under s 90C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).' 'Whether the Chinese divorce between Mr Ren and Ms Kong should be recognised in Australia under s 104 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).' 'Whether the requirements of s 90G(1)(ca) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) were satisfied.' 'Whether the freezing order made on 28 April 2017 should be dissolved or continued against Ms Kong.']

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement dated 4 November 2016 was not a binding financial agreement under s 90C because it was made after Ms Kong and Mr Ren had divorced, and the Chinese divorce was recognisable in Australia under s 104. In any event, there was no evidence that Mr Ren was given a copy of Ms Kong's solicitor's statement as required by s 90G(1)(ca), and no material to justify relief under s 90G(1A). Because Ms Kong did not establish that the Warrawee property effectively belonged to her under a binding financial agreement, the freezing order should continue.

Court Disposition

Second Respondent's motion dismissed with costs; freezing order continued until further order.

Orders

  • ["Ms Kong's motion filed on 29 May 2017 be dismissed with costs." 'The freezing order made by the court on 28 April 2017 continue until further order of the court.']